'One Nation Labour' would ruin the country, just like Old and New Labour

Old Labour wrecked the economy in the 1970s and then collapsed (despite Jim Callaghan's brave stand against the far-Left union leaders) in the aftermath of the Winter of Discontent. Then, after wrecking the economy which Thatcher and Major had fixed in the 1980s and 90s, Blair did a runner leaving NuLabour and Brown to collapse in 2010. Now, as Cameron and Osborne, hampered by their Lib Dem partners, struggle with a mountain of debt left by the Blair/Brown debacle, One Nation Labour has been born. Its prescription for recovery is no different from that of Old Labour or NuLabour. The label on the bottle has been changed but the contents have altered very little.

Keep spending, keep borrowing, tax the rich until they are as poor as the rest of us, keep the doors wide open to Third World immigation, sell out the last of our independence to Brussels – and collapse when there is not only no money left, but no one willing to lend.

To be sure, Miliband did very well to ape in his speech the style which led David Cameron to the leadership of the Conservative Party (but not to a clear win at the general election). If walking round Number 10 spouting a free-flow of well rehearsed banalities made a great prime minister, Ed Miliband would be up there with Disraeli, Peel, Churchill and Thatcher, but I am afraid it is a little more difficult than that.

Of course there was much for us to laugh at in his speech. Does One Nation Labour have any thing to say about “multicultural Britain”? Will we all speak English again or will official documents still come in polyglot style? Does the guarantee of a job for every school or university leaver a job have attached to it a compulsion to take the jobs offered? Would the jobs be open to migrants from central and southern Europe?

More serious by far was that One Nation Labour seems to be in denial about its parentage. It did not recognise for a moment that NuLab had any responsibility for the debt it racked up on the account of the nation. Indeed, it scarcely seemed to recognise that if it came into office in 2015 it would be facing hard choices.

Now we go on to the final conference of the 2012 season. I wonder if the Prime Minister will seek to trump Mr Miliband's ace performance with an even longer noteless feelgood burble with even less content, or if we will be offered a serious speech.

My breath is bated.

…

There were some interesting debates and exchanges among your comments to my blogpost of last Wednesday and perhaps nagsman was right to say that he detected a note of sadness in it. Certainly cognisant felt it made depressing reading and confirmed his defection to UKIP. That was also reflected by whocares, who asked if nowadays when the thinking of party leaders seem dominated by polls and focus groups these party conferences any longer make any wide impact. Indeed I had to wonder if oldschool was on to something with his suggestion that the Conservatives, Lib Dems and Labour conferences should be rolled up into one.

There was a thoughtful debate between Daniel Cohen, who thought that the Government was broadly speaking right, and tepid cocoa1983, who strongly disagreed. They also disagreed over whether, as tepid cocoa thought, the Coalition is dismantling or abolishing the welfare system, the NHS and all that, with thammond65, MJHopeC and MarcusJunius Brutus joining in from the Right. I am not sure if ifitfits' suggestion that we might benefit from having coalitions all the time was made seriously, in despair, or in mockery. In any case it seemed to appeal to WoolyMinded Liberal.

On the whole there was not too much sympathy for either David Cameron or Mr Clegg and his fellow Lib Dems, although darkseid pleaded that we should take Mr Clegg at his face value. Yes, but which one? His Deputy Prime Minister one or his Leftist Lib Dem one? The one who wants “fair votes”, or the one which obstructs efforts to give all Parliamentary constituencies about the same number of electors and wants to keep the unfair system which gives Labour an advantage over Clegg's coalition partners? It was foxoles who weighed in with a quote from Simon Hughes telling Labour that the Lib Dems would make good partners for them. Then jo308 (whom I should thank for his good wishes to my wife) deplored Mr Cameron's habit of letting Mr Clegg get away with it all, and I liked Elliot Kane's suggestions that, as Lib Dems think taxes are so good for us, we might have a special tax on Lib Dems.

The LibDems had a hammering from palfreman, mikeozanne and ryeatly as “tarts for sale”, with bersher feeling that was a bit hard on tarts and Lefty thinker coming in to mock Lefty thinkers.

I have to disagree with danoconnor's view that present Conservative policies are to the Left of those in the 1960s. The Thatcherite reforms have not all been lost, but he is right to see a tendency to slide back to Macmillan-style corporatism.

Both Scradge, who agreed with me on aid to India and much else, and sampsonbrass, who felt that the Mitchell affair added arrogance to Government incompetence, suggested I might have a word with Mr Cameron, unless of course I might be too plebby for that. Well, for whatever reason I fear I do not have easy access to the Prime Minister.

There was some discussion about who is given police protection; I think the answer is that it is given if intelligence suggests that there is a threat of violence. It was nice to hear from happyboy that no one took any notice of John Major in an Asda supermarket, but we should remember that IRA/SinnFeinn tried to kill him in a mortar attack on Downing Street. I think tonish was wrong to suggest that Sinn Fein/IRA sued for peace because of the climate of opinion after the 9/11 outrage in America. I am told that it was because their command structure had been penetrated by British Intelligence and a file had gone to the prosecutor’s office seeking the prosecution of a leading member of IRA/SinnFein for eight separate murders. It had pinned to it a note that the individual concerned was expected to be part of the terrorist delegation at the proposed peace talks. He has never been prosecuted.

Several of you, including MarcusJuniusBrutus, were concerned, as am I, at the scale of defence cuts in an increasingly dangerous world. As Harold Corbishley, observed it looks increasingly like the 1930s.

The post by bersher setting out how little capital punishment has been used in recent years in the USA was well worth reading, as was reagun’s good-humoured restatement of his advocacy of the right to carry arms. So too was MTBucket's comment on Frank Field's suggestion that we should go back to the idea of the contributory principle for welfare benefits.

Lastly, theguerilla asked me what will be my advice to voters in 2015. I think it best just to note that it is still 2012. As the Bible tells us, “there is a time for all things”, and that time is not yet.